RECORD EDITORIAL: Commissioners in the crosshairs on King’s Grant

Saturday

So, King’s Grant has sweetened the pot, penned a new development agreement and the St. Johns County Commission will consider it mid-month.

The county’s Planning and Zoning Board has twice denied the development’s wish list and commissioners have turned it down once.

The new deal revolves predominately around it setting aside land for a fire station and bankrolling the operation for three years. Does this help the county? Possibly. Does it help King’s Grant? Definitely. A fire station within a development is a perk and selling point, as are the lower fire rates future King’s Grant residents would pay.

Then there’s the $100,000 cash offer to “support commercial development in the area.” That’s vague, at best. But $100,000 won’t buy 5 feet of whatever kind of infrastructure — roadway, sewer or otherwise — in today’s dollars.

Forget all this. It’s a diversion. Our county has a comprehensive plan and it was never intended to include buy-out clauses. It’s not really a stretch to compare it to a bank robber being found not guilty because he gave half the take to an orphanage.

So what is a comp plan? Here’s what the University of Florida tell us:

“To help assure that local plans will be meaningful and substantive, the Growth Management Act sets forth a number of mandatory elements that must be included in each plan. … Local plans are required to build upon appropriate and specific data and analysis to help assure that the plans have a sound basis. For example, the plans are to be based upon an analysis of existing land uses and resources. Future land uses are to be designated with reference to the estimated needs of the projected population of the community. The statute intends that the plan be able to direct growth in a manner that protects environmental resources, conserves tax dollars, promotes efficient use of public infrastructure and services, and implements the community's vision of itself (emphasis ours) .

County Attorney Patrick McCormack said, “The County feels strong in its litigation position.” So does attorney Jane West, who represents the South Anastasia Communities Association. This group may prove to be the lynchpin in the fight. It was granted status in the suit brought by King’s Grant against the county. What the judge ruled was, yes, residents most affected by the development have a right to join in the defense of their neighborhoods.

That was big — and King’s Grant immediately sought other means to legally extract the citizen group from the fray. Why? They present the real “face” of the issue and guarantee what one attorney termed a “more robust” defense” of the suit.

We could, and have, gone on and on about comp plans conveying “rights” to developers. They clearly do not. That’s why the developer seeks a Planned Unit Development which, basically, erases the land use chalk board and writes the parameters anew.

We might nickname PUDs “What comp plan…?”

We could go on and on about 999 homes on 40-foot lots and sprawl and leap-frog development. But is that really the point?

No. The point is we have a comp plan — and will we defend it for our residents or sell it to the highest development bidder? It’s that simple. Does the County Commission or big development run things around here?

Secondary to that, if commissioners kneel to King’s Grant’s blustering, it’s open season in the southern part of the county in terms of development. Nothing makes a better argument for other PUD requests down the road than “Well, they did it for King’s Grant.” It’s called “precedent” and we’d be setting a doozy.

If we allow history to be our guide, we could expect commissioners to wave the “expensive litigation” white flag: “We shouldn’t expect our taxpayers to fund a protracted legal fight,” they’ll demur.

We’d be willing to bet that 90 percent of our residents would support drawing this line in that sandy scrub off State Road 206.

Finally, the county may face litigation whether it wants it or not. If it turns down the King’s Grant challenge, it might escape. But if it chooses to accept the “gift” from King’s Grant, it will be sucked into an entirely new lawsuit. And this time, it will be against its own constituents.

SACA has given Jane West Law the go-ahead to file suit against St. Johns County if the King’s Grant deal gets done. Their take is that it’s a clear case of the county selling out its own comp plan —make that our own comp plan.

We wouldn’t want to be on the wrong end of that one, with the most politically engaged community in the county behind it, and an environmental honey badger running the show in court.

County Commissioners are now both in the crosshairs and in that icky space between the proverbial rock and hard place. Their best way out, from where we sit, is to yank up the “for sale” sign on S.R. 206 and move on to pastures less “green.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Stay Connected

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
The St. Augustine Record ~ One News Place, St. Augustine, FL 32086 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service